The website did not reproduce any of the disputed material, nor make any comment about it, a crucial distinction of the case.

Free speech advocates and media policy researchers hailed the ruling.

"The court recognises that simply posting a link to material that may be libellous is a far cry from publishing or repeating the libel, let alone endorsing what has been said in the linked post," Dean Jobb, a journalism professor at University of King's College told Canada's Globe and Mail newspaper.